Use and misuse of taxonomies of learning: integrated educational goals in computer science curricula

  • Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer
  • Elisabeth M. A. G. van Dijk
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT)


Most systematic design procedures for either curricula or courses start from a description of educational goals. These goals are then decomposed into more specific objectives which are categorized according to some taxonomy of learning. The basic idea is that different categories of goals and objectives correspond with different optimal instructional methods. However, for complex intellectual skills a set of subskills is performed. The ability to perform each of those subskills separately does not guarantee that the skills can be coordinated and integrated in performing real-world tasks. This problem is known as the problem of ‘integrated goals’ or ‘multiple objectives’. This paper argues that educational goals and objectives should be seen and treated as highly integrated and interrelated during the whole educational design process. Approaches to dealing with multiple objectives are discussed.


Informatics curriculum (general) taxonomies levels of competence educational profiles 


  1. Bloom, B.S. [ed.] (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives: Cognitive domain. David McKay, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Carlson, R.A., Khoo, H. and Elliott, R.G. (1990) Component practice and exposure to a problem solving context. Human Factors, 32, 267–286.Google Scholar
  3. Duffy, T.M. and Jonassen, D.H. [eds.] (1992) Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  4. Elio, R. (1986) Representation of similar well-learned cognitive procedures. Cognitive Science, 10, 41–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frederiksen, N. (1984) The real test bias: influences of testing on teaching and learning. American Psychologist, 39 (3), 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gagné, R.M. (1965) The conditions of learning [1st edition]. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Leshin, C.B., Pollock, J. and Reigeluth, C.M. (1992) Instructional design strategies and tactics. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  8. Mager, R.F. (1962) Preparing instructional objectives. Tearon, Palo Alto.Google Scholar
  9. Merrill, M.D. (1983) Component display theory, in Instructional design theories and models (ed. Ch. Reigeluth ), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  10. Schank, R.C. and Cleary, C. (1995) Engines for education. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  11. Van Merrienboer, J.J.G. (1997) Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component instructional design model for technical training. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer
    • 1
  • Elisabeth M. A. G. van Dijk
    • 2
  1. 1.Graduate School of Teacher Training, Department of Instructional TechnologyUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations